Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Oh yeah, got to harass them mercilessly to make sure they know how much we resent doling out the scraps they get. This liberal disagrees. Work, yes. Unnecessary BS to punish them? No.
In Denmark, people on welfare ARE street sweepers. And because of the embarrassment, they get off of welfare as quickly as they can.
Being a welfare recipient in any country should be considered an unacceptable way of life and not a welcomed permanent condition.
One problem, is they're given 48 hour notice or more of a home visit, I would like to see this end. This gives them time to get extra cars away from the home, take out anything that is questionable. This really needs to end, I saw this happening last week!
Quote:
Originally Posted by jamies
Work, I can't work. I'm too busy popping out babies and smoking meth to work. Besides I'd just get hurt on the job and go on workers comp and sue the employer.
Amazing this can be used to describe a person bringing a child in the world. Then the child grows up and commits a crime and some in society blames society!
Most people on welfare are required to work. That's usually one of the requirements for getting food stamps or other forms of assistance. You have to have some sort of income (or at least actively seeking employment), or be disabled.
Most people on welfare are required to work. That's usually one of the requirements for getting food stamps or other forms of assistance. You have to have some sort of income (or at least actively seeking employment), or be disabled.
All one has to do is list a few businesses, so how is this really proved?
You are free to turn down the job if you don't wish to be drug tested for starters.
Also, mandatory drug testing for welfare recipients is just a welfare payment to the drug testing companies. And it's been proven welfare recipients actually aren't big drug users.
In case you don't know this, drugs are REALLY expensive. Anytime I have even seen hard drugs this century has been in the company of the affluent and upwardly mobile.
Another bad example.
You are free to not apply for welfare if you can't pass the drug test. If you have money for drugs you obviously don't need welfare. The study you use is one study and the recipients were told weeks in advance of the testing, people still failed.
Drugs aren't expensive. We have plenty of people who come in as "self pay" (ie. no insurance) that are half dead from their weekend bender of doing drugs.
I know a 30 years old lady with three kids, ages 1, 3, 5. Husband was making very good money, and one day went out the country with his new 18 years old girlfriend. Please tell me how this woman can work, and if yes, who is going to pay for childcare?
I know a 30 years old lady with three kids, ages 1, 3, 5. Husband was making very good money, and one day went out the country with his new 18 years old girlfriend. Please tell me how this woman can work, and if yes, who is going to pay for childcare?
If the husband went to a non reciprocal treaty country, then the United States has no jurisdiction. The husband can ignore childcare or alimony. She should have picked a better husband. However, the husband can never legally set foot on US soil without being arrested and jailed. Nor can the husband reside in a reciprocal treaty country. I think under such circumstances they should make an exception.
Thats what the WPA was all about in The Great Depression. Despite minimal economic success, it boosted the spirits of workers and help build infrastructure that is still used today.
Democrats would object to ANY WPA type program today, in which welfare recipients would be used as labor to work on roads, dams, and parks. The reason dems like welfare is that it creates a cohort of permanent democrat voters. They really do not care about them doing any work.
Some years ago putting welfare workers was talked about and most of the city and state public employees screamed and cried about how it put them out of work.
The idea was dropped.
I recall all the hoopla when Sheriff from AZ was putting criminals to work and most of the left cried about that.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This liberal disagrees. Work, yes. Unnecessary BS to punish them? No.
